Case Summary (A.M. No. 852-MJ)
Background of Allegations
The complaint was filed against Judge Nidea, alleging bias and improper conduct in judicial proceedings. When Judge Nidea was required to respond, he denied any claims of partiality or favoritism. Subsequent inquiries were made by the Department of Justice, which had administrative oversight over inferior courts at that time, to substantiate the allegations of bias and unfair treatment against the complainant and his counsel.
Proceedings and Developments
On November 27, 1969, a scheduled investigation was convened; however, both the complainant and his legal representative failed to appear. Judge Nidea was present for the proceedings. During the investigation, it was discovered that the complainant had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on an affidavit indicating that the administrative charge had arisen from a misunderstanding that had since been resolved. Notably, this was the second occurrence where the complainant requested a postponement of the investigation.
Court’s Conclusion
Due to the complainant's absence and in light of the recent motion to dismiss—which suggested he no longer wished to pursue the administrative complaint—the Court determined that it was challenging to progress without the complainant's active involvement. The Court thus decided to dismiss the case, stating that the merits were not sufficiently substantiated by evidence or presence from the complainant.
Recommendations and Final Resolution
The Office of the Judicial Consultant analyzed the situation and submitted a memorandum recommending dismissal, highlighting the complainant's failure to substantiate his claims and his indication that the dispute was resolved. The Court found this recommendation appro
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 852-MJ)
Case Overview
- The case involves a complaint filed by Felisberto Alegre against Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea, alleging partiality and favoritism.
- The complaint appears to stem from Alegre's dissatisfaction as a losing party in a prior legal matter.
- Respondent Judge Nidea denied any accusations of partiality or favoritism.
Procedural History
- The matter was referred to then Executive Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for investigation.
- The Department of Justice had administrative supervision over inferior courts at the time.
- A scheduled investigation was set, but complainant Alegre and his lawyer failed to appear on two occasions.
Investigation Findings
- On November 27, 1969, during a scheduled investigation, only Judg